Selfishness

alt.memetics archives
June 7 - 21, 1995
Number of articles: 7
Newsgroups: alt.memetics
From: magi@polaris.cc.utu.fi (Marko Gr|nroos)
Subject: Selfishness
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 07:36:22 GMT


Can someone define selfishness?

Ok, a gene (a non-conscious entity) can be selfish. Can a rock be
selfish? Rock surely tries to exists and if something hits it, it
resists and the softer object may break.
  Bombs surely are not selfish themselves - they bravely commit
suicide for the cause of their makers. But, by exploding, bombs do
their job and people make more bombs. Therefore the meme of bombs is
selfish, not the bombs themselves.
  Also, my computer selfishly does what I wish it to do (rarely
though), since otherwise it would be plugged off the wall and thrown
away. Also, by working well, a computer spreads it's memes by making
more people buy it's sisters.
  Rocks can exist without humans and therefore don't need a meme or a
gene to exist. Can only non-thinking entities be genuinely selfish?
  Is the Universe selfish? Are laws of physics selfish?

So, can selfishness be applied to non-living, non-thinking entities?
Any good definitions for it?

-- Marko Grönroos, YO-kyla 27 A 9, Turku 20540, Finland, Tel# (+358-21-) 373337
-- mailto:magi@utu.fi, http://www.utu.fi/~magi/

From: hingh@xs4all.nl (marc de hingh)
Newsgroups: alt.memetics
Subject: Re: Selfishness
Date: 7 Jun 1995 14:20:00 GMT

>
>Can someone define selfishness?
>
[useful examples deleted]

Here's a first attempt:

	________________________________________________________

	A structure, defined in relation to a certain frame of
	reference, is SELFISH if the effects of the structure,
	in the environment where it usually exists, increase the
	probability of the existence of the same structure at a
	a later moment in time.                          (def.1)
	________________________________________________________
	

This raises more questions than it answers, but it's a start.  If you 
don't agree (I assume you don't agree), please try to be constructive.

++Marc
_____________________________________________________________________
 alt.memetics web page:    http://www.xs4all.nl/~hingh/alt.memetics/

Newsgroups: alt.memetics
From: magi@polaris.cc.utu.fi (Marko Gr|nroos)
Subject: Re: Selfishness
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 1995 14:31:20 GMT



In article <3r4cig$104@news.xs4all.nl> hingh@xs4all.nl (marc de hingh) writes:
> >Can someone define selfishness?
>	   A structure, defined in relation to a certain frame of
>	   reference, is SELFISH if the effects of the structure,
>	   in the environment where it usually exists, increase the
>	   probability of the existence of the same structure at a
>	   a later moment in time.			    (def.1)
> This raises more questions than it answers, but it's a start.  If you
> don't agree (I assume you don't agree), please try to be constructive.

Actually I don't disagree. This sounds quite sensible and very
generic.  This definition seems to include almost everything in the
universe (except for the bombs, old grannies and many other humane things).

But, can these structures be simultanously selfish and unselfish? Like
bombs may explode for the sake of their memes, but they still have a
hard casing to prevent premature destruction. Also, old grannies can
still selfishly gather money and other things like teapots or watch
TV, although they do give milk to neighbours kittens and rescue little
froggies from driveways.

(Ok, what's unselfishness then?)

-- Marko Grönroos, YO-kyla 27 A 9, Turku 20540, Finland, Tel# (+358-21-) 373337
-- http://www.utu.fi/~magi/

From: david hadley <david@dhadley.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.memetics
Subject: Re: selfish discussion
Date: 11 Jun 1995 08:09:06 +0100

In article: <3r9spj$4g2@news.xs4all.nl>  hingh@xs4all.nl (marc de hingh)
writes:
>
> >> but some discussions are so predictable, that it seems to make
> >> more sense to consider the arguments and counter-arguments used
> >> in the discussion as *co-memes*, mechanically activating one
> >> another, thereby supporting eachother's propagation.
> >>
> >> well-known examples of such 'selfish debates' are "nature-nurture"
> >> and the "consciousness"-debate.
>
> >Would this be similar to how memes combine and mutate. For example the
way 
> >the JFK assassination meme and  the conspiracy meme have combined and
> >mutated into the JFK assasination conspiracy?
>
> Yes, that would be a good example of two mutually assisting memes, if
> we consider the fact that JFK conspiracy theories have been a source
> of inspiration for the development of other conspiracy theories.
> (JFK enriched the conspiracy meme-pool so to say)
>
> In the case of JFK conspiracies, there's a clear hierarchic relationship
> between the two co-memes (JFK conspiracy as a special case of
> conspiracies in general).	But that needs not be so.
> A counter-example would be to consider the Democrats and Republicans as
> co-memes, cooperating in stabilizing US politics.
> (In European politics, the same can be said of liberalists, socialists,
> and christian-democrats)
>
> The step of seeing opponents as _allies_ on a higher meme-level is
> interesting.  Call it 'selfish dualism'.
>
>
>
>
It strikes me that this could go two ways. Either you could get two 
political parties constantly forcing each other away, so in effect they 
become two seperate species, which, I suppose, could lead to civil war. I 
think this was what happened in Bosnia and so on. 
But, the other way, as you suggest could lead to each  party, or whatever, 
forcing its oposition to tone down its extremme elements, so each becomes 
more acceptable and electable, evolution, in a sense, to a more fitter 
party. This has happened in the UK, many people allege that the Conservative 
and Labour parties are almost indistinguishable from each other.
-- 
david hadley  david@dhadley.demon.co.uk
|*| No Science = Nonsense |*|

From: hkhenson@shell.portal.com (H Keith Henson)
Newsgroups: alt.memetics
Subject: Re: Selfishness
Date: 21 Jun 1995 02:45:35 GMT


Will Ware (wware@world.std.com) wrote:
: Marko Gr|nroos (magi@polaris.cc.utu.fi) wrote:
: [ assorted discussion of selfishness ]
: : ... can these structures be simultanously selfish and unselfish? Like
: : bombs may explode for the sake of their memes, but they still have a
: : hard casing to prevent premature destruction. Also, old grannies can
: : still selfishly gather money and other things like teapots...

: I think it's useful to distinguish between two different senses of
: selfishness. There is "selfishness by intent", like if I steal your
: wallet or knowingly steal your lunch bag from a shared refrigerator.
: Grannies collecting teapots *know* they are collecting teapots.

: Then there's "emergent selfishness". Genes do not make conscious
: plans to replicate, nor do they consciously plan to compete, nor
: do they keep track of how they're doing compared to other genes.
: Because of the things they DO do, they create an appearance over
: the long term of competing with one another, in what appears at times
: to be a conscious way. But when you look at the gene, it's just a
: few amino acids schlepped together with no cognitive abilities at
: all. It can't figure anything out, it can't make plans, it can't
: have intentions or hopes or dreams or fears, it can't feel regret
: or remorse for a past "decision", it can't make decisions.

: To the extent that memes are a useful idea (and should therefore
: be construed to exist), they also are emergently selfish, not selfish
: by intent.

: It's interesting to note that emergent selfishness seems to be much
: more reliable than selfishness by intent. That is, I intend to live
: a long life, but I may do stupid things in trying to fulfill that
: goal (being misled by whatever mistaken ideas I may harbor about the
: world). My genes do a much better job, having been much longer honed
: by experience than my intellect, and without the temptations of
: deception to confuse them.
: -- 
Utter nitpick, at the bottom level, genes are DNA base pairs. Otherwise,
this posting is an excellent one which I consider to be fully in 
the mainstream of thoughts on memes.  I think Dawkins would appreciat
the mini-meme of "emergent selfishness" as you have outlined it.
Well stated!  Keith Henson




From: hingh@xs4all.nl (marc de hingh)
Newsgroups: alt.memetics
Subject: selfish discussion
Date: 7 Jun 1995 14:37:51 GMT


you can think of a discussion as a competition between memes.

but some discussions are so predictable, that it seems to make
more sense to consider the arguments and counter-arguments used
in the discussion as *co-memes*, mechanically activating one
another, thereby supporting eachother's propagation.

well-known examples of such 'selfish debates' are "nature-nurture"
and the "consciousness"-debate.

--marc


From: david hadley <david@dhadley.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.memetics
Subject: Re: selfish discussion
Date: 9 Jun 1995 07:15:55 +0100

In article: <3r4dk0$3nt@news.xs4all.nl>  hingh@xs4all.nl (marc de hingh)
writes:
>
>
> you can think of a discussion as a competition between memes.
>
> but some discussions are so predictable, that it seems to make
> more sense to consider the arguments and counter-arguments used
> in the discussion as *co-memes*, mechanically activating one
> another, thereby supporting eachother's propagation.
>
> well-known examples of such 'selfish debates' are "nature-nurture"
> and the "consciousness"-debate.
>
> --marc
>
>
>
Would this be similar to how memes combine and mutate. For example the way 
the JFK assassination meme and  the conspiracy meme have combined and 
mutated into the JFK assasination conspiracy?
-- 
david hadley  david@dhadley.demon.co.uk
|*| .sig file abducted by aliens |*|
From: hingh@xs4all.nl (marc de hingh)
Newsgroups: alt.memetics
Subject: Re: selfish discussion
Date: 9 Jun 1995 16:27:31 GMT

>> but some discussions are so predictable, that it seems to make
>> more sense to consider the arguments and counter-arguments used
>> in the discussion as *co-memes*, mechanically activating one
>> another, thereby supporting eachother's propagation.
>>
>> well-known examples of such 'selfish debates' are "nature-nurture"
>> and the "consciousness"-debate.

>Would this be similar to how memes combine and mutate. For example the way
>the JFK assassination meme and  the conspiracy meme have combined and
>mutated into the JFK assasination conspiracy?

Yes, that would be a good example of two mutually assisting memes, if
we consider the fact that JFK conspiracy theories have been a source 
of inspiration for the development of other conspiracy theories.
(JFK enriched the conspiracy meme-pool so to say)

In the case of JFK conspiracies, there's a clear hierarchic relationship
between the two co-memes (JFK conspiracy as a special case of
conspiracies in general).  But that needs not be so.
A counter-example would be to consider the Democrats and Republicans as 
co-memes, cooperating in stabilizing US politics.
(In European politics, the same can be said of liberalists, socialists,
and christian-democrats)

The step of seeing opponents as _allies_ on a higher meme-level is 
interesting.  Call it 'selfish dualism'.